Re: [Ogf-l] Value of IP and IP laws

[Githianki]

I don't think this is narrowing the definition of property so much as clarifying what it refers to.  Saying "property is property" is circular and is essentially what I was addressing. Intellectual Property is a form of granted rights to an expression of ideas which no one can own; not just because it isn't tangible but because its very existence depends on shared expression. This is a metaphysics issue.  If you re-read what I wrote closely you will see that my definition of property is the same as what you wrote/quoted. In fact the use of the word determinate highlights this.  IP has nothing to do with ownership of ideas and concepts but everything to do with the rights associated with the use of a determinate expression of those ideas. Perhaps it  is just a matter of semantics. The trouble with IP laws is two fold. Not only do many IP holders wish to push the definitions to include the ideas and concepts behind an expression, but there is also the problem that the more technology accelerates the spread of various realized ideas (ideas set for as an expression) the more it serves society to see the duration of IP laws decrease so that the ideas can be built upon now.  This tug of war is part of what we are seeing.  The greed for money now versus the needs of society to move forward.  Some inventor might want to make a lot of money from his invention by limiting its spread, but what if the rapid spread of that invention would benefit society far more?  Where do you make the fair trade, or more to the point how do you convince the person to share their idea with the rest of the world?  The solutions our forefathers came up with did not anticipate the sort of technological progress we have made since then, as far as durations are concerned. -Alex Silva